United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BOWBEER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is once again before the Court on Plaintiff Rico
Ronondo Rodriguez's applications to proceed without
prepaying fees, or in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). ECF Nos. 2, 7, 12.
-- a prisoner -- filed a complaint on July 28, 2017 in which
he alleged that the defendants were liable for injuries to
his hand. Since that time, Rodriguez has been ordered to
amend his IFP application, pay his filing fee, and amend his
complaint. On September 18, 2017, he was ordered to file an
amended IFP application because his initial application was
blank. ECF No. 6. Once he complied, he was ordered to pay an
initial partial filing fee, failing which his case would be
dismissed. ECF No. 8. When he did not pay, Rodriguez was
provided “one last extension of time” to pay. ECF
No. 11. When he again did not pay, on January 8, 2018, the
Court adjusted the amount of his initial partial filing fee
and again provided him with “one last extension of
sixty days” to pay the initial filing fee. ECF No. 14.
The Court also screened the complaint pursuant to the IFP
statute, determined that it was inadequate, and ordered
Rodriguez to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 14. The Court
once again warned Rodriguez that if he failed to comply, the
Court would recommend that this action be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b). The deadline to comply has now passed and Rodriguez
has paid the initial partial filing fee but has not filed an
amended complaint. For the reasons described in its prior
order, and outlined below, the Court therefore recommends
January 8, 2018 order, the Court informed Rodriguez that, in
the context of a civil rights complaint like his, a plaintiff
must describe each individual defendant's personal
involvement in the alleged wrongdoing in order to state a
claim. ECF No. 14 at 2-3. The Court specifically informed
Rodriguez that he did not have to provide the name of each
defendant but only sufficient factual allegations so that any
“John Doe” or unknown defendant was
“capable of being identified.” ECF No. 14 at 4.
Rather than amend his complaint as directed, Rodriguez filed
a letter to the Court in which he “ask[s] the courts to
subpoena” his arrest report from Belleville, Illinois
so that he can “move forward” with his case. ECF
No. 15. This letter is inadequate and fails to comply with
the Court's order to amend his complaint.
Court also informed Rodriguez that the Minnesota Department
of Corrections was immune from suit. ECF No. 14 at 5.
Rodriguez's most recent letter does not address this
problem with the complaint either. He states that he has
“the Minnesota paper work and will be sending it to
[the Court] soon.” ECF No. 15. However, the Court
previously informed Rodriguez that he could not rely on loose
documents untethered from factual allegations against
particular defendants in the complaint. ECF No. 14 at 4.
Rodriguez's future intention to send more documents
rather than file an amended complaint does not address the
inadequacy the Court described. Since he commenced this
action, Rodriguez has repeatedly stated that more information
is forthcoming but the action has now been pending eight
months and nothing that he has filed thus far comes even
close to addressing the shortcomings of the complaint.
summary, the Court provided Rodriguez with a list of
requirements for his amended complaint so that this case can
move forward. ECF No. 14 at 5-6. The Court has provided
Rodriguez with numerous opportunities to comply with those
requirements, yet it remains unclear even whom he would
attempt to serve with this lawsuit if IFP status were
granted. Accordingly, for the reasons outlined in its prior
order and above, this Court now recommends that this action
be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure
to prosecute. See Henderson v. Renaissance Grand
Hotel, 267 Fed. App'x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (per
curiam) (“A district court has discretion to dismiss an
action under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff's failure to
prosecute, or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or any court order.”).
upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED
that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to
Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an
order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not
appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve
specific written objections to a magistrate judge's
proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after
being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation.
A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after
being served a copy of the objections. LR 72.2(b)(2). ...